A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

[...]

Whereas the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised;” and

Whereas the other States that included recommendations, to wit Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change; and

Whereas these recommended changes were incorporated as the ninth amendment, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the tenth amendment, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, to the Constitution for the United States of America; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; [...]

[...]therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory;[...]

I think New Hampshire sees a problem with the path the federal government is going down. I think they see a problem with the end effect of the bailouts and "stimulus". I think they are concerned. I think they have every right to be.

It is time for ALL OF US to remind our Senate, Representatives, and President that the US Constitution is not a permission slip, but a set of RESTRICTIONS.

On the news this weekend, a woman in California is barred from smoking in her own home. The news had two pundits to discuss each side. One took the position that this is unconstitutional as it restricts a legal act of a person in one's own home. The other took the position that it was perfectly legal to restrict this otherwise legal behavior since the US Constitution does not specifically prohibit the government from doing this. I don't know about the California state constitution, but they only discussed the federal for some reason.

That is the attitude that too many of our legislators take: there is nothing in the US constitution expressly about some thing so that thing must be legal. This is incorrect. Actions allowed by the federal government are clearly spelled out. Anything not enumerated in the US constitution is delegated as a right of the "several states" of the United States, and NOT to the US Government. Read amendments nine and ten if you don't believe me.

I think some members of Congress have confused what "providing for the general welfare" means. I would be surprised, in fact, if any member of Congress (House or Senate) has actually read the entire document and read it for understanding: it is a LIMITATION on power, not a GRANT of.